The minister discussed the factum the government has presented to the court outlining its position, marking the first time the words
“Pierre Poilievre” and “factum” have appeared in the same sentence. The government
has put several questions to the court, essentially seeking clarity around what
reforms Parliament can make on its own, what reforms would require provincial
approval, and what level of provincial approval would be required for outright
abolition, ie. unanimity, or seven provinces with half the population.

The Harper government’s position is that it can proceed
unilaterally on Senate reform. I’m not a legal expert, but most of those I’ve
seen weigh-in say, while it can proceed unilaterally in some ways, substantive reform
does mean constitutional reform. And while the feds can make some changes to
areas of sole federal interest on its own, substantive reforms would likely go
beyond that.

But I’ll let the legal experts, and of course the Supreme
Court, hash that one out. There’s what’s legal, and what’s right. And even if
the courts said the feds could substantively reform or even abolish the Senate
without the provinces, I’d argue they lack the moral authority to do so and
would be making a mistake if they tried.

I’ve written extensively on the Senate in the past. Most
recently I’ve argued what I’d like the Senate to be – an upper chamber with
equal representation by province or region with clearly defined powers, to
serve as a regional counter-weight to what should be a purely representation by
population lower chamber in the House of Commons. With uneven population growth
across the country, I think that’s an important piece to have in our
parliament. The provinces have an undeniable interest in ensuring regional
voices are heard and represented fairly in parliament; it’s difficult to argue
this is purely a federal matter.

However, I would go beyond just requiring provincial
approval through the amending formula for substantive Senate reform or
unanimity for abolition. The people must be involved too. When Stephen Harper
first came to Ottawa as a staffer and later a Reform MP in 1993, he was a
leader in a party that believed in consulting the people on such matters via referendum.
It’s time he returned to his roots.

Before we proceed down the road to reforming or abolishing
the Senate, which would be a pretty major change to our democracy, the people
must become involved. We need to have a debate in this country around how we
want to be represented, and what we want our democracy and our parliament to
look like.

And then we should vote in a national referendum, and the federal
and provincial governments should proceed as the people direct.

1 comment:

Canada's Parliament is as, the Westminster Parliament in the U.K. Canada is so far removed from that Parliament, it's a joke to pretend this country isn't a Dictatorship.

The U.K. is still pretty much a Democracy. Politicians are not permitted to lie to, nor thieve from the people. They go to prison if they do so. If Canadian Politicians were Politicians in the U.K? Most of them would be in prison, including Harper.

Harper as a Dictator will not consult the Provinces, on the senate reform. Harper's own team are trained Seals. Dictators are far too arrogant to consult, anyone on anything. All Dictators through the ages, have very similar personalities.